The Democrat. (Scotland Neck, Halifax Co., N.C.) 1884-1896, 1887-01-14
GOV. SCALES. ON THE TAX
COMMISSION.

appeared so many reasons why The
bill should not become law We
were t.. ~ surprised to see The
Governor commend it in these words
1T is in the main wise and econOm
zeal and presents up to tits time til,
best rra, teal solution of the diff
culties t, he rsmedied," We have
tie highest RI gard for the members
of the G mission. We know then
20 be men Of sbility. Two members
of TIE Commission are PERSONAL.
knavn to US, and their ability is OF
the fist order, but they were gives
a difficult, perhaps impossible, tash
to perform, and we are not surprised
THAI they have failed. They have
Gone as well as any enc in the State
could have done.
In oar opinion the bill pr opposed
BY the Commission is neither wise
nor economical nor pract!c: l..
First, is it economicaie Under
the present law it does not cost an.
pually to take the list OF taxab]es tt
exceed $50 per township. Under
the plan proposed by the rommis-
sion the list taker has to be paid
three dollars per day. This would
cost each township $50, and the list
takers have to he engaged for at
least twenty days. The county as
SCISSORS have to travel all over tbt
ccuaty every year at cost of six
dollars per day. This would cost
the county S240 per year. In s
county having ten township eacl
townships share would be $24. ST..
it will be seen that we have already
nearly three times as much cost at
tending the proposed plan as there
Is under tie law as it new stand
pay Of deputy list takers provided
for and the milage and per diem OF
assessors while ia session with thu
County Board. Then the District
and State Boards meet every year
and tie ms mbers have to be paid
mileage and per diem.
We have no hesitation in saying
that it will cost the people of tn.
State II ore Than three times as muci
as it now costs to list and assess tb,
property of the State, if the BIZ
proposed by the Commission is
a'optea. This is apparent to any
'.ns who knows any thing about the
law now on tn statute. books ano
who will read the Report of the
Commission. Then we would re-
specifically ask where is the eCOno
my of the plan.
Is the III proposed wise one:
l there amy wisdom in having |
IL str 1t Board whose only duty il
t. maxi a ,ecemmesdat on? Is there
!. any wis !om in having County
Board, when under the plan of the
Commission the State Board has
airead, fxed the average value Of
an acre of land in every county
tue average value of each kind o.
live STOCK. and the actual value o.
town. city snd village property, an6
the County Board is obliged tt
conform to the value already fixeC
Is there any wisdom in valuing the
lands every year? Is there an,
wisdom in appointing two men t.
travel around the counties ever,
year to value the lands? What
could men so appointed know about
the value Of land, except In theil
own neighborhoods, without taking
evidence, and the time allowed then
to make the annual circuit IS toe
short for that? Let all o.; section
90. Ga pag; 10, Of the Report be
read. Is there any wisdom in the
plan here proposeds Is not this
section unintelligibIe? Is there any
wisdom in the pla1 pr opposed to col
lect the poll tax? Should this plar
be adop pied, the legislator would
soon exclaim l have paid "'too dear
Tor my whistle"
AS we said last week the subjec,
Of equality of value of property
throughout the State has been un.
duly magnifed. Tue nece sslty fol
the thing is neither urgent nor i'm.
peratlve and it is less important.
The State only gets twenty-five
cents on $loo worth of property
and, If there should be such an ex.
treme case of inequality Of value a.
that which We last week supposed
one citizen would only pay six dol.